To All,
This morning the Center for Biological Diversity, Project Gutpile, and a variety of other organizations re-filed a new petition to the Environmental Protection Agency.

While it essentially appears to be the same petition requesting a lead ammunition ban as has been rejected by both the EPA and by a court, plaintiffs are continuing the same line as before about original comments from the Congressional Record.

Like the last version, it's being filed during an election cycle. This, in turn, makes the petition even more controversial given national politics.

Perhaps another key difference this time appears to be an official request of the EPA to evaluate the alternative metals being used for ammunition as well as lead.

Given EPA metals guidance that have been previously published, study of the known toxicities of such metals as copper, tungsten and bismuth may result in additional ammunition restrictions than just besides lead.

The wisdom of earlier generations of Second Amendment Activists is coming into play up until now, what with language that so far has exempted ammunition from TSCA purview.

But that language and precedent are not stopping environmental activists from trying to go around the law so as to ban ammunition in general. A TSCA petition, as every one on Calguns has understood before, would address hunting AND target shooting AND self defense uses of ammunition made with the petitioned materials. If EPA were to conclude (as it has in other uses) that copper and tungsten bismuth likewise are toxic metals that can contaminate the environment, there would be very little left to shoot (and don't get me started on depleted uranium...).

I respectfully request that everyone with an interest in preventing ammunition bans by environmental regulations go and read the CBD press release at:

As demonstrated before, the science behind the claims of lead ammunition being the cause of lead poisoning has serious discrepancies among it's many claims. The case, as demonstrated before at the California Fish & Game Commission, is certainly weak enough for gunowners to totally object until such time as they see the objective proof, including the raw data, behind the claims. Until that time comes to pass, it can be easily said that the case against lead ammunition itself has been heavily overstated at best.

As always, when gunowners and firearms activists are united on a particular cause, especially important ones such as whether there will be ammunition available to shoot at all, they are a formidable group to deal with in the political and legal arena. I hope that continues to remain true as the various lead and ammunition bans emerge from the efforts of the Usual Suspects.

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

compulsivegunbuyer

03-13-2012, 1:21 PM

Shot down once, will be shot down again. EPA already stated it has no legal authority to regulate ammunition, and it had no interest in pursuing it.

CrazyPhuD

03-13-2012, 1:32 PM

Ban lead allow teflon coated steal....problem solved. (I kid I kid)

NytWolf

03-13-2012, 2:43 PM

Shot down once, will be shot down again. EPA already stated it has no legal authority to regulate ammunition, and it had no interest in pursuing it.

That's not the problem. The problem is, those idiots will keep petitioning until it gets passed.

Flopper

03-13-2012, 2:51 PM

This has me about as worried as the world ending in December.

If the only ammo we could shoot were asbestos-coated plutonium filled with trans-fatty acids, we'd still be fine.

fundamental right is fundamental.

acanales

03-13-2012, 3:01 PM

Dear Flopper,
As much as I agree on the fundamental right issue, the problem here is the Toxic Substances Control Act and, ultimately, the Endangered Species Act.

And there has been a disturbing trend for a while that SCOTUS defers on the majority of lower court rulings in favor of strict environmental regulation.

Of course, we in California and much of the Rocky Mountain West live in the jurisdiction of the Federal 9th Circuit Court.

Given that last issue, I think concern is warranted. Especially when the selections for the Supreme Court are going to be a major campaign issue for November.

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

CEDaytonaRydr

03-13-2012, 3:21 PM

I can't understand this "ban lead" argument. Where does lead come from? It's mined, from the ground.

Where do projectiles end up after they've been fired? The ground....

What's the problem? :confused:

Flopper

03-13-2012, 3:22 PM

Dear Flopper,
As much as I agree on the fundamental right issue, the problem here is the Toxic Substances Control Act and, ultimately, the Endangered Species Act.

And there has been a disturbing trend for a while that SCOTUS defers on the majority of lower court rulings in favor of strict environmental regulation.

Of course, we in California and much of the Rocky Mountain West live in the jurisdiction of the Federal 9th Circuit Court.

Given that last issue, I think concern is warranted. Especially when the selections for the Supreme Court are going to be a major campaign issue for November.

Respectfully,

Anthony Canales

Realistically nothing will come of this--banning firearms projectiles would teach the world the true meaning of uproar.

OniKoroshi

03-13-2012, 3:26 PM

I guess we're left with wolverine made adamantium bullets...

Bolillo

03-13-2012, 3:43 PM

Flopper,

Agreed that it's a fundamental right. But this EPA stuff bears watching. While the right to keep, bear, and shoot may not be infringed upon, nothing says that the exercise of such has to be done at a cost you like or can afford. You have the right to free press, as an example, but no right to buy ink at an affordable (to you) price.

Vast chunks of CA (condor zone) are already closed to hunting with lead ammo; non-lead replacements (if available in the right caliber) costing 2X more.

Note: I'd be happy to see somebody here reference a case law that refutes that press/ink analogy.

Meantime, don't underestimate this issue.

meaty-btz

03-13-2012, 4:23 PM

Indeed, this also has a huge impact for "casting yourself". This is a great way to restrict gun usage. It is intentional, not to control lead but to control guns by controlling the ammunition available.

Flopper

03-13-2012, 4:54 PM

Flopper,

Agreed that it's a fundamental right. But this EPA stuff bears watching. While the right to keep, bear, and shoot may not be infringed upon, nothing says that the exercise of such has to be done at a cost you like or can afford. You have the right to free press, as an example, but no right to buy ink at an affordable (to you) price.

Vast chunks of CA (condor zone) are already closed to hunting with lead ammo; non-lead replacements (if available in the right caliber) costing 2X more.

Note: I'd be happy to see somebody here reference a case law that refutes that press/ink analogy.

Agreed that it's a fundamental right. But this EPA stuff bears watching. While the right to keep, bear, and shoot may not be infringed upon, nothing says that the exercise of such has to be done at a cost you like or can afford. You have the right to free press, as an example, but no right to buy ink at an affordable (to you) price.

Vast chunks of CA (condor zone) are already closed to hunting with lead ammo; non-lead replacements (if available in the right caliber) costing 2X more.

Note: I'd be happy to see somebody here reference a case law that refutes that press/ink analogy.

Meantime, don't underestimate this issue.

Right!

This is just another strategy designed to eliminate not just hunting, but all outdoor shooting. Any reports of condors outside the current lead free zone will trigger further extensions of the zone. This is exactly what has been happening. Furthermore copper will become an issue, just as it has in anti-fouling bottom paint for boats. If the anti gun activists don't make progress with the EPA they can always count on the CA Fish & Game Commission to cave in.

I don't see how Ezell could be extended to address the environmental or economic questions about the use of ammunition. In a nutshell, Ezell says, "use of firearms is a fundamental right, therefore Chicago may not ban places where ordinary citizens may exercise that right". Ezell certainly does not say that ordinary citizens must be able to exercise that right within some economic limits. Sure, Ezell argues that Chicago residents shouldn't have to drive way out to the suburbs to use a range, but my own take is that is more along the lines of rights afforded to persons not to have to travel far to exercise their right to vote, for example.

Consider the already mentioned condor zone. Look at the economic impact of the CA ban on certain VOC chemicals. Look at the due process issues of having a piece of useable private land be declared "wetlands" and having the owner's value destroyed. Add in the CA MLPA effect on the livelihood and rights of commercial and sport fishermen.

Issues surrounding the use of lead ammunition have had more ranges shut down and hunters restricted than what will ever be opened up by Ezell.

Please, I want you or somebody with a better legal background than mine to slap me with a rebuttal that does show we have some protection against the loss of our fundamental rights, in a practical way, for so-called environmental reasons. Heller, McDonald, and Ezell are good, but what about when the cost of a round of "approved" centerfire ammo costs as much as a gallon of gas, and must be used only in an isolated and sealed indoor location? Do Heller, McDonald, and Ezell help us there? I want to be wrong about this.

Wherryj

03-13-2012, 8:59 PM

This has me about as worried as the world ending in December.

If the only ammo we could shoot were asbestos-coated plutonium filled with trans-fatty acids, we'd still be fine.

fundamental right is fundamental.

"Shirley you can't be serious?" Bullets with trans-fats? Talk about WMDs.

Flopper

03-14-2012, 10:22 AM

I don't see how Ezell could be extended to address the environmental or economic questions about the use of ammunition. In a nutshell, Ezell says, "use of firearms is a fundamental right, therefore Chicago may not ban places where ordinary citizens may exercise that right". Ezell certainly does not say that ordinary citizens must be able to exercise that right within some economic limits. Sure, Ezell argues that Chicago residents shouldn't have to drive way out to the suburbs to use a range, but my own take is that is more along the lines of rights afforded to persons not to have to travel far to exercise their right to vote, for example.

Consider the already mentioned condor zone. Look at the economic impact of the CA ban on certain VOC chemicals. Look at the due process issues of having a piece of useable private land be declared "wetlands" and having the owner's value destroyed. Add in the CA MLPA effect on the livelihood and rights of commercial and sport fishermen.

Issues surrounding the use of lead ammunition have had more ranges shut down and hunters restricted than what will ever be opened up by Ezell.

Please, I want you or somebody with a better legal background than mine to slap me with a rebuttal that does show we have some protection against the loss of our fundamental rights, in a practical way, for so-called environmental reasons. Heller, McDonald, and Ezell are good, but what about when the cost of a round of "approved" centerfire ammo costs as much as a gallon of gas, and must be used only in an isolated and sealed indoor location? Do Heller, McDonald, and Ezell help us there? I want to be wrong about this.

Ezell reinforces what we already knew about civil rights: you can't ban something that is CORE to said civil right.

Ammunition is certainly core to RKBA--thanks to Chicago being so hardheaded, Ezell was able to give us a ruling that clarified that shooting ranges are considered core to RKBA.

The government also can't regulate a core part of a civil right so heavily as to artificially inflate the price of the exercise of the right to a ridiculous level.

Of course we need to be vigilant, but for now I'm going to eat a sammich and take a nap.

ClarenceBoddicker

03-14-2012, 11:36 AM

Shot down once, will be shot down again. EPA already stated it has no legal authority to regulate ammunition, and it had no interest in pursuing it.

EPA is part of the executive branch. If the EPA can regulate stuff like lead paint, they can choose to regulate lead in ammo if the POTUS tells them to.

Ban lead allow teflon coated steal....problem solved. (I kid I kid)

Lead will be banned & guess what, the Republican/NRA supported Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1985 (signed by Reagan on 8/28/86) bans all steel core ammo that can be used in any handgun. Then the only legal ammo will be very expensive copper core rounds. Yes the ATF can & will declare all rifle ammo as pistol rounds, like they did with 7.62x39mm thanks to Olympic Arms.

This has me about as worried as the world ending in December.

If the only ammo we could shoot were asbestos-coated plutonium filled with trans-fatty acids, we'd still be fine.

fundamental right is fundamental.

Go exercise your "right" to build a machine gun after 5/19/86 & see how far that gets you.

I can't understand this "ban lead" argument. Where does lead come from? It's mined, from the ground.

Where do projectiles end up after they've been fired? The ground....

What's the problem? :confused:

The issue is mostly small dia lead shot gun shot ending up in carcasses, that then get eaten by birds like the condor. Animals don't eat natural lead exposed in the ground. If "sportsmen" wouldn't break the law by shooting banned ammo in restricted areas, there would be no issue. Of course they follow those laws like they follow anti-littering laws at informal shooting ranges, or committing acts of vandalism by shooting signs, etc.

Realistically nothing will come of this--banning firearms projectiles would teach the world the true meaning of uproar.

If lead ammo was outlawed there would be the same uproar that happened when steel core ammo was banned in 1986, non at all.

bwiese

03-14-2012, 11:57 AM

This has me about as worried as the world ending in December.

If the only ammo we could shoot were asbestos-coated plutonium filled with trans-fatty acids, we'd still be fine.

fundamental right is fundamental.

WRONG, sonny.

There's a right to own firearms.

There's not necessarily a right to have 'really cheap bulk ammo'.

We may well end up with firearms we can't afford to feed - as a result of not taxes, but prohibitions on substances that fall outside of RKBA.

You should understand that you are hearing the NRA's worries being expressed in the original post here by Tony.

Ammo bans are my worst fear. These will require a hard POLITICAL fight, since RKBA protections are unlikely for various ammo compounds.

Lugiahua

03-14-2012, 12:00 PM

Wasn't steelcore is actually cheaper than lead?

Flopper

03-14-2012, 5:35 PM

If lead ammo was outlawed there would be the same uproar that happened when steel core ammo was banned in 1986, non at all.

That was one type of projectile, the alternatives were not prohibitively expensive, and we had no RKBA.

If the government suddenly banned access to ALL ammo (de jure or de facto), you really think there wouldn't be a reaction?

If so, if everything is so bleak, why even bother coming to this forum?

jaymz

03-14-2012, 7:30 PM

The issue is mostly small dia lead shot gun shot ending up in carcasses, that then get eaten by birds like the condor. Animals don't eat natural lead exposed in the ground. If "sportsmen" wouldn't break the law by shooting banned ammo in restricted areas, there would be no issue. Of course they follow those laws like they follow anti-littering laws at informal shooting ranges, or committing acts of vandalism by shooting signs, etc.

Wrong. In part anyway. The problem is that mommy and daddy condor feed their babies trash, with in turn kills them. Even if lead is really killing adult birds, even according to the anti-lead people, adult birds are a big killer of baby birds. Dead baby birds means nothing to replace the adults when they die - natural causes or not. Seems to me that the California Condor is one of it's own worst enemies.

ClarenceBoddicker

03-14-2012, 8:27 PM

That was one type of projectile, the alternatives were not prohibitively expensive, and we had no RKBA.

If the government suddenly banned access to ALL ammo (de jure or de facto), you really think there wouldn't be a reaction?

If so, if everything is so bleak, why even bother coming to this forum?

Wrong, it was all projectiles except for lead (that will be banned by the EPA in the future), copper, plastic, rubber & possibly ceramic. Here's the list of banned pistol projectiles from 1986: tungsten alloys, steel, brass, bronze, iron, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium. Sounds just like the CA "cop killer" (even though no LEO's have ever been killed by a pistol bullet that penetrated their armor vest) bullet possession law, where do you think they got it from?

The government won't have to ban anything overnight to get citizens to stop owning or using what they don't want you to have. The plan is small easy to comply with incremental restrictions. Death by 1000 small cuts. How many people do you know that own legal machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles & shotguns, AOW's or destructive devices? How about CA registered "assault weapons"? How about some collectible WWII German & post war Czech 7.65 or 9mm ammo? How about Chinese or East German military surplus ball 7.62x39mm ammo? I could go on, but some will understand the point that incremental bans do work very well.

Here's a simple way they could ban all lead ammo without much opposition, if any. 1st they use the POTUS EO powers to restrict or ban the importation of lead core ammo. That will start a panic buy for all ammo like none ever seen before. That will cause the price per round to skyrocket. Then the Feds will crack down on the few domestic ammo manufactures. They will come out with absurd regulations like OK lead core ammo for indoor or approved outdoor ranges with bullet traps. All other ammo will have the lead reduced in steps like with gas in the 1980's. Once the supply is low & prices well above $1-$2 a round or more, companies will start making expensive approved 100% copper or whatever core ammo. People will be happy just to be able to buy ammo whenever they want once again & will not complain too much about the cost. The last restrictions will be on the home reloader & black powder shooters. The new high price for ammo of course will turn many people away from shooting altogether, but that is part of their plan of total civilian disarmament. It worked with lead in products like gas & paint.

Even when mass production of the new solid copper rounds cranks up, the cost will not come down very far. Just look at the super high metal prices just before the latest US depression hit. The price of auto batteries jumped up, as the price of lead went up. Once the price of lead fell though, the new higher prices stayed the same. Many "new" auto batteries you buy now are built with used & cleaned plates from core batteries. Only the plastic case & electrodes are new. They do just the same thing with packaged foods. The price stays stable, but the number of chips in the bag drops. Some bags of chips are mostly full of air. US corporate greed keeps the prices high, product volume lower with good profit levels. The dumb consumer just looks at the price & the mega corporations uses outsourcing & high tech to produce more with less human involvement.

The reason things are bleak with rights in the US, not just guns, is due to past failures of our ancestors & groups like the NRA. How about the role of the skeptic? Is that OK with you?

BigDogatPlay

03-15-2012, 7:02 AM

Realistically nothing will come of this--banning firearms projectiles would teach the world the true meaning of uproar.

Really? How has that uproar been going in the 15 counties in California where lead ammo for hunting was banned by legislative fiat over the objections of the F&G Commission and it's scientists?

Ammo and / or component bans are very, very scary to think about, as outlined in other posts above. Such bans would be very difficult and costly to try and deal with politically or through litigation, with only remote chances of prevailing.

r3dn3ck

03-15-2012, 8:04 AM

Shot down once, will be shot down again. EPA already stated it has no legal authority to regulate ammunition, and it had no interest in pursuing it.

That's not the problem. The problem is, those idiots will keep petitioning until it gets passed.

ok, wolfie, now re-read and understand this time. You can poo in one hand and want in the other and see which fills up first if you need a graphical illustration of your failure to observe logic.

Shot down once, will be shot down again. EPA already stated it has no legal authority to regulate ammunition, and it had no interest in pursuing it.